begin quote
On Fri, 3 Oct 2003 08:02:23 -0400
gabriel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On October 3, 2003 04:24 am, Spider wrote:
> > begin quote
> > On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 06:34:49 +
> >
> > "Senectus -" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > hats basicly saying you can load all kernel modules into the
On October 3, 2003 06:27 am, Juha-Mikko Ahonen wrote:
> On pe, 2003-10-03 at 15:02, gabriel wrote:
> > what if you disabled "loadable module support" in the kernel?
>
> Wont help you as it is possible to insert code directly into the kernel
> via /dev/kmem. Making the kernel memory read-only is an
On pe, 2003-10-03 at 15:02, gabriel wrote:
> what if you disabled "loadable module support" in the kernel?
Wont help you as it is possible to insert code directly into the kernel
via /dev/kmem. Making the kernel memory read-only is an option for
combatting malicious kernel module injection. This c
On October 3, 2003 04:24 am, Spider wrote:
> begin quote
> On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 06:34:49 +
>
> "Senectus -" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > hats basicly saying you can load all kernel modules into the kernel,
> > and disable insmod and that tightens up security a crap load??
>
> The paper shows
begin quote
On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 06:34:49 +
"Senectus -" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> hats basicly saying you can load all kernel modules into the kernel,
> and disable insmod and that tightens up security a crap load??
The paper shows how to add modules into a kernel even if it is statical
So thats basicly saying you can load all kernel modules into the kernel, and
disable insmod and that tightens up security a crap load??
Senectus
"Imagine a school with children that can read and write, but with teachers
who cannot, and you have a metaphor of the Information Age in which we
l
begin quote
On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 13:57:54 -0400
Jerry McBride <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> One other aspect of having your drivers/modules compiled into the
> kernel.. security. If it's built into the kernel, there's now way an
> interloper can sneak a modified module(s) into your linux box...
On Thursday 02 October 2003 09:48 am, gabriel wrote:
> on a recent thread, someone explained how to get your linux box to read
> a windows partition by compiling your kernel for vfat/ntfs support.
> they then went on to explain how to set it up so that your kernel can
> either (a) compile this stuf
* [Oct 02, 2003] gabriel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
[snip]
> so my question then is: why compile something as a module if you're
> going to load it into the kernel at boot anyway? what are the
> (dis)advantages?
I personally try to compile almost everything as a module for the simple
fact that it's fa
Message-
> From: brett holcomb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 10:57 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] modules vs. compiled in
>
>
> Because you might now want to load it at boot so you leave
> it as a module. When it's n
Because you might now want to load it at boot so you leave
it as a module. When it's needed it is loaded - in some
cases automatically if I remember correctly.
On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 09:48:09 -0400
gabriel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
on a recent thread, someone explained how to get your
linux box
gabriel wrote:
on a recent thread, someone explained how to get your linux box to read
a windows partition by compiling your kernel for vfat/ntfs support.
they then went on to explain how to set it up so that your kernel can
either (a) compile this stuff in, or (b) compile them as modules and
loa
on a recent thread, someone explained how to get your linux box to read
a windows partition by compiling your kernel for vfat/ntfs support.
they then went on to explain how to set it up so that your kernel can
either (a) compile this stuff in, or (b) compile them as modules and
load them automatic
13 matches
Mail list logo
